To recap our conversation:

h: The fact that the gamergate people were wrong about Zoe Quinn trading sex for positive publicity and were wrong about Zoe Quinn lying about donating funds to iFred does not assist
N: Do you have proof of that?
h: Despite requests from those people advocating strongly for the position that Zoe Quinn received some other benefits from the liaisons I haven't seen anybody produce any positive publicity for Zoe Quinn that occurred after the incidents happened and iFred have said they received donations.
N: About the case between Quinn and the journalists, i think it's very clear that they DID have some kind of relationship that should have been disclosed when these journalists made articles about her game.
h: Firstly, there was only one journalist, you speak of journalists. The fact that you are talking about "these journalists" is interesting to note. I think that is quite telling. Secondly, there were no positive articles published about Quinn or her game after they had sex.
N: Yes, she had relationships with journalists. The reports indicate that she had relationships with Nathan Grayson (from Kotaku) and Ben Kuchera (from Polygon).

I'm obviously talking about the sex for favours allegation. Are you also talking about that or when you say Zoe Quinn had a relationship with Ben Kuchera, or are you now talking about some other kind of relationship?

Have you read iFred's facebook update stating clearly that they had received donations from Zoe Quinn/Depression Quest?

Either iFred are lying about that or you have to accept that the people who accused Zoe Quinn of not donating were wrong - sure they did were wrong after asking an intern a vague question via facebook private messages, but that doesn't make the accusation any less wrong.

I think you may misunderstand the concept of proof. Are you talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities or absolute proof?

If they are sleeping together and the journalist isn't publishing articles about her, in my view there is no issue. People can sleep with who they want.

I never mentioned anything about a "suspicious" relationship. Was only talking about trading sex for favours. Then you brought up Ben Kuchera. I don't know why you brought him up if, as it appears to be that you are not talking about him in the context of sex for favours.

I am trying to focus on the two issues I brought up - the allegations of trading sex for favours and iFred. Nothing else.

I want you to put in your words what Ethics you would like to see Games Journalists take, how far they should be allowed to go before they cross the line and how tightly they should be bound by these Ethics.

What?! Why? Why would anyone write about things they are disinterested in? As much as we like dressing them up as "Games Journalists", they're basically glorified games reviewers. They're not telling us the news, that "This game is about to be released" or "That game company went under". That stuff could now be gleaned off twitter if someone cared. Heck, in Ben Kuchera's case specifically (I finally wikied him), he's employed at Polygon as a "senior opinion editor", i.e. it is HIS JOB to give his opinion.

Still, even discounting all that, I still think your ideas about bias and disclosure are a little diverged from reality. For a comparative example, does a political columnist disclose who she voted for at the start of every article? Does she disclose in her articles who she contributed campaign funds to? Does anyone even expect her to do such a thing? No. Does that make her articles any less meaningful? No.

Now if some politician had donated money to HER, or if she was on one of their boards or committees, THAT would definitely signal something amiss. Or if she was employed as part of their election campaign for an upcoming election. Or if she was a major shareholder in some business with the politician, and she was writing about how he totally isn't using his influence to push the company forward. In those cases would be best for her to disclose that in any article giving that politician a positive slant.

But a right-leaning political columnist, supporting a right-leaning politician, who she may have voted for, contributed funds to and so on, somehow it is unethical for her to write about him because she supports him?

I don't know if you're unaware of this, but even some of the most biased journalists have gotten in trouble for political donations. Take Keith Olbermann as an example. If you aren't familiar with him, he's one of the most left-leaning pundits out there, and there's no doubt in anyone's mind who he's rooting for politically.

As a general rule, anyone you're willing to give money to is someone you've already made up your mind about, and any objective analysis of them or their behavior is compromised for those already-existing opinions. That's not a problem for most people, but for those purporting to be journalists, figures who could potentially be the subject of a future story are typically off-limits for that reason.

I obviously don't know any of the details beyond what you linked, but thanks for that. It does seem that he publicly disclosed his donations, but there are rules against it in NBC (and "a wide range of other news organisations"). I guess in my mind I was more considering political columnists and opinion pieces, as they seem to be the kind of articles most closely related to those that people are railing against in the games industry.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

What ethics should game journalists take? I assume you mean what ethics they should follow or are you asking if they should take specific courses on ethics? I think they should follow the same rules of ethics as other journalists. Avoid actual conflicts of interest, report truly and fairly and try to balance information/harm. The code of ethics you referred me to seems to be good.

I don't understand what you mean when you ask how far they should be allowed to go before they cross the line. I guess my answer would be they should be allowed to go as far as they like, as long as they don't cross the line? Sorry, I just don't understand the question. Are you asking what amounts to a breach of the code and what doesn't or are you asking how many times a journalist should be allowed to breach the code before they are penalised? Obviously that would be something that would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

I don't understand what you mean by how tightly they should be bound by these ethics. Do you mean, what should happen to them if they breach the code or do you mean whether the government should regulate it or whether there should be a watchdog or whether it should be a voluntary code? How tightly they should be bound… Maybe, I'll just say tight, but not so tight they can't breathe :p

I'm guessing you're not going to be happy with my answers but I really don't understand your questions.


"To summarize both points - we need to weed out propaganda pieces." This kind of comment is precisely what I meant when I said "writing what I want to read". I think variety of articles/websites/journalistic styles is good, but there seem to be people in the GG movement who are looking more at what kind of articles should not be written, rather than what kind of additional articles they would like to read. Not everyone mind you, but I do see it.

Hi there,

I want to say I agree with this quote, such people for sure exist. I would prefer if they would be more tolerant, etc...

But criticism/ reviews are secondary "literature".
The anti-gg folks are the ones where "there seem to be people who are looking more at what kind of games content should not be made rather than what kind of additional games they would like to play."

This huge blind spot on most of the other side, now offended at exactly the sin they have been indulging in, is either incredibly oblivious, or even malicious. Do you see the point?

Because that's called being a professional journalist. I've known professional journalists and they never get to write about things they want to write about unless they're a columnist. They'll move from section to section on a fairly regular basis in large part to prevent this sort of connection from forming. I suppose fresh perspective is another.

It's an absolute joke that "journalists" are being allowed to have undisclosed connections to their subjects.

Interesting point. I hear what you are saying.

I guess it comes down to the subtle distinction between criticism and saying "because I don't like it, you shouldn't write it/make it". That distinction isn't always clear.

New stuff fromt the gaming industry
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social

Sorry if this is a duplicate, I didn't see it linked yet.

The moment money is exchanged then there's a compromise of objectivity. Any journalist worth his/her salt should say, "in the spirit of full-disclosure, I gave money to this developer because i like their game, and you should too." No other way around it. it is a big deal, no matter what ben kuchera, jenn frank, john walker, patricia hernandez, or any other of those corrupt journalists think otherwise.

Not even money though, gifts are that same compromise of objectivity considering it's money the other person doesn't have to spend, and let's be honest, how often do people give gifts to random strangers, it's usually people they're at least friendly with.

Precisely, just about any connection ought to be disclosed. That's not to say that being on the same panel at a con needs to be disclosed or having been at the same charity banquet needs to be disclosed either. But, there does need to be some common sense applied by the reviewers about what is and isn't reasonably going to suggest biases.

Being an acquaintance isn't necessarily going to be a problem, but the tighter the relationship or the more focused it is on changing the reviewer's opinion the more important it is to disclose.

Better safe and sorry. Just err on the side of disclosure and apologize if you mess up. People are likely to forgive minor mistakes in judgement if you've got a generally honest channel.

Yeah, basically a good journalist should avoid even perceived conflicts of interest, because that can taint what they're investigating without even being true. I would argue that some of the larger sites might want to look into having a few people exclusively doing reviews but that's more of a budget eater then they might be able to handle.

I just realized something really sad: People like AS are actually making me MORE supportive of exploitative sexism in games.

I realize this is more of a personal problem than anything else, but still...